The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[T.J.]

I mean how God in general tends to contradict himself. The Christian god, anyway. I can't speak for the others. From what I know of the Greek gods they don't seem to have as many contradictions, but those are the stories everyone dismissed as myth.

And yes, those three things are exactly how we come to that conclusion. I take it you understand why we take that stance?

[SteveII]

I mean how God in general tends to contradict himself. The Christian god, anyway. I can't speak for the others. From what I know of the Greek gods they don't seem to have as many contradictions, but those are the stories everyone dismissed as myth.

And yes, those three things are exactly how we come to that conclusion. I take it you understand why we take that stance?

How does God contradict himself? You should be able to come up with a pretty good list since he contradicts himself more than the Greek gods. 

I'm glad you see that your logic is faulty.

[T.J.]

lol, seriously? There's nothing faulty about dismissing something that includes supernatural elements when there's no evidence that supports it. As for the rest:

If God is all powerful why can't he rid of sin without having to give birth to himself and dying on a cross? That suggests he's not all powerful.
If he is all knowing how can there be free will if he knows everything we're going to do before we do it? Thus, he cannot be all knowing, or there is no free will.
If he is everywhere, then how did he leave the Garden of Eden and come back? Thus he cannot be everywhere.
If he is all good, why is there evil in the world, and why does he declare he created evil? (Yes, it's in your own book). Thus he cannot be all good.

These are what you would call contradictions.

I'm sure others here could list even more reasons if they can be bothered, but considering how well these discussions usually go I can't blame them if they'd rather sit this one out.

[GrandizerII]

lol, seriously? There's nothing faulty about dismissing something that includes supernatural elements when there's no evidence that supports it. As for the rest:

If God is all powerful why can't he rid of sin without having to give birth to himself and dying on a cross? That suggests he's not all powerful.
If he is all knowing how can there be free will if he knows everything we're going to do before we do it? Thus, he cannot be all knowing, or there is no free will.
If he is everywhere, then how did he leave the Garden of Eden and come back? Thus he cannot be everywhere.
If he is all good, why is there evil in the world, and why does he declare he created evil? (Yes, it's in your own book). Thus he cannot be all good.

These are what you would call contradictions.

I'm sure others here could list even more reasons if they can be bothered, but considering how well these discussions usually go I can't blame them if they'd rather sit this one out.

Let me add to the list:

How does a timeless God shift into time?

How does a supposedly mindful God exercise his/her mind in the absence of time?

What did God create the universe from?

How is the Christian God one being yet three persons, each distinct from one another and each the full essence of God?

[SteveII]

@Ayen @Irrational

These have all been addressed so is it that:

1. You do not know that they were addressed and would like to hear the answers,
2. You have heard the answers and feel they were not adequate, or
3. Have read a list somewhere that these are the logical contradictions to prove Christians wrong and are not really interested in the answers. I'm not being condescending, just want to know whether I should make the attempt to answer.

[GrandizerII]

@Ayen @Irrational

These have all been addressed so is it that:

1. You do not know that they were addressed and would like to hear the answers,
2. You have heard the answers and feel they were not adequate, or
3. Have read a list somewhere that these are the logical contradictions to prove Christians wrong and are not really interested in the answers. I'm not being condescending, just want to know whether I should make the attempt to answer.

2. Your attempts to address my listed objections in other threads (excluding the Trinity part since this was never discussed with you) have been rather poor.

[T.J.]

4. I haven't heard your specific answers and not every theist is the same. Just like not every atheist is the same. I just got out of a conversation talking about shapes for crying out loud, nothing's off the table.

2 and 3 is basically why some of us act the way we do. That list aren't arguments as much as stances. We're just waiting to see if a theist can do the impossible and offer hard evidence of God, or actually concede to the stalemate. It's honestly frustrating that you're so close to understanding our viewpoint and it's still going over your head.

[KevinM1]

Why can't an all knowing, all powerful god be able to create a universe where its mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility and we'd be able to perfectly understand it so we wouldn't even be having this discussion?

I really don't know what you mean by "mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility".

But as to why the existence of God is not more obvious, I think that since 80-90% of the world believes in some sort of religion speaks to how obvious or not obvious that might be. Additionally, free will is a factor. Our chief purpose is to freely choose to know God so how obvious can God make it before that is affected? Of course you seem to be presupposing that the claims of the NT are completely false, so now you are arguing in a circle: 

1. There is no evidence for God (i.e. supernatural events)
2. The NT does not count because of supernatural events
3. Therefore there is no evidence for God.

It's not circular because the NT is a claim of supernatural events, not evidence for them.

Really, I expected better from you with that.

[SteveII]

I really don't know what you mean by "mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility".

But as to why the existence of God is not more obvious, I think that since 80-90% of the world believes in some sort of religion speaks to how obvious or not obvious that might be. Additionally, free will is a factor. Our chief purpose is to freely choose to know God so how obvious can God make it before that is affected? Of course you seem to be presupposing that the claims of the NT are completely false, so now you are arguing in a circle: 

1. There is no evidence for God (i.e. supernatural events)
2. The NT does not count because of supernatural events
3. Therefore there is no evidence for God.

It's not circular because the NT is a claim of supernatural events, not evidence for them.

Really, I expected better from you with that.

What is the difference? How do we know any historical event happened? People write about it.

[GrandizerII]

It's not circular because the NT is a claim of supernatural events, not evidence for them.

Really, I expected better from you with that.

What is the difference? How do we know any historical event happened? People write about it.

Well, since Bayes' theorem (or Bayesian probability) was brought up very recently in another thread, perhaps the key is in the prior probabilities. In the absence of information ascertaining or substantially improving the likelihood of supernatural events, then the probability of any supernatural event is extremely low, very close to zero.